• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Timeline shows Bush, McCain warns Dems of crisis, meltdown

Faster horses

Well-known member
(sorry for the heading, I didn't have enough room to get it all in)

This video clearly shows that George Bush warned Congress starting in 2001 that this economic crisis was coming if something was not done. Congress refused to listen, along with the arrogant Congressman, Barney Frank.

This video says it all. The liberal media reportedly did not want this video on You Tube; it was taken off.

This link is of the same video but is routed through Canada. Everyone in America needs to see this before it is yanked off the Internet again!

Let's see how far we can spread it before it's pulled it off the Canadian site.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Oh NO!
oldtimer can't be wrong!!
He has been blaiming this all on BUSH!!
OHH NOOOO
oldtimer wrong, can't be!!!~

Well maybe!!!!
Yep more than likely!!!!!
So sorry oldtimer you lose again!
BLAME BUSH!!!!!! :roll: :roll: :roll:

EH???
OH VEY!!!!!

please tell me oldtimer does not lie
:wink: :wink: :wink: :wink:
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Why can liberals just look at the facts and be honest about how all this is not Bush's fault?

Bush has plenty of things he is to blame for, but when liberals will not even acknowledge the truth on things that are so blatant. How can we engage them in any kind of debate on other pressing issues like Health care or immigration?

This is the number one flaw of a liberal, they will not admit when they got something wrong!
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
Why can liberals just look at the facts and be honest about how all this is not Bush's fault?

Bush has plenty of things he is to blame for, but when liberals will not even acknowledge the truth on things that are so blatant. How can we engage them in any kind of debate on other pressing issues like Health care or immigration?

This is the number one flaw of a liberal, they will not admit when they got something wrong!
I disagree, Bush does share the blame. He could have done as Pres. Reagan did many times to get his agenda through a Democrat Congress...go over the heads of Congress to THE PEOPLE!!! This was Bush's biggest flaw...not defending his actions and promoting his agenda to the people. That does leave the question why because he left it to the MSM to define his actions!

This whole melt down could have been and should have been stopped! :mad:
 

Clarencen

Well-known member
As time goes by, more and more of such things will come to light. We have seen it many times before. Trouble is, history is written from the writer's own interpetation and not always a fair interpetation of the real facts.

Political campaigns are based on "blame the other party" never on a fair or honest interpetation. Ninety percent of our present problems are the result of last summers campaign rhetoric. To many of us want to blame someone else for the mistakes we make. People tend to pick up the negative or pessimistic view more often then to look at things as they really are. Most of us are so gullible, we want to follow the crowd rather then think and act for ourselves.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
RobertMac said:
aplusmnt said:
Why can liberals just look at the facts and be honest about how all this is not Bush's fault?

Bush has plenty of things he is to blame for, but when liberals will not even acknowledge the truth on things that are so blatant. How can we engage them in any kind of debate on other pressing issues like Health care or immigration?

This is the number one flaw of a liberal, they will not admit when they got something wrong!
I disagree, Bush does share the blame. He could have done as Pres. Reagan did many times to get his agenda through a Democrat Congress...go over the heads of Congress to THE PEOPLE!!! This was Bush's biggest flaw...not defending his actions and promoting his agenda to the people. That does leave the question why because he left it to the MSM to define his actions!

This whole melt down could have been and should have been stopped! :mad:

I stand corrected! You are right Bush has to share blame for not doing more to make the problem known to the public.

Politicians now days are to busy playing politics, if he screamed to loud he looked like he was against poor people having homes. But he should have been like Reagan and not cared and did what was best for the Country.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
RobertMac said:
aplusmnt said:
Why can liberals just look at the facts and be honest about how all this is not Bush's fault?

Bush has plenty of things he is to blame for, but when liberals will not even acknowledge the truth on things that are so blatant. How can we engage them in any kind of debate on other pressing issues like Health care or immigration?

This is the number one flaw of a liberal, they will not admit when they got something wrong!
I disagree, Bush does share the blame. He could have done as Pres. Reagan did many times to get his agenda through a Democrat Congress...go over the heads of Congress to THE PEOPLE!!! This was Bush's biggest flaw...not defending his actions and promoting his agenda to the people. That does leave the question why because he left it to the MSM to define his actions!

This whole melt down could have been and should have been stopped! :mad:

I stand corrected! You are right Bush is to blame for not doing more!

Politicians now days are to busy playing politics, if he screamed to loud he looked like he was against poor people having homes. But he should have been like Reagan and not cared and did what was best for the Country.


Whoa up here AHole.


You blame Clinton for EVERYTHING from economy to the local dog taking a crap in your yard.


Why should you squeal if me or OT or anyone else think Bush is the cause of all the problems.?
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
aplusmnt said:
RobertMac said:
I disagree, Bush does share the blame. He could have done as Pres. Reagan did many times to get his agenda through a Democrat Congress...go over the heads of Congress to THE PEOPLE!!! This was Bush's biggest flaw...not defending his actions and promoting his agenda to the people. That does leave the question why because he left it to the MSM to define his actions!

This whole melt down could have been and should have been stopped! :mad:

I stand corrected! You are right Bush is to blame for not doing more!

Politicians now days are to busy playing politics, if he screamed to loud he looked like he was against poor people having homes. But he should have been like Reagan and not cared and did what was best for the Country.


Whoa up here AHole.


You blame Clinton for EVERYTHING from economy to the local dog taking a crap in your yard.


Why should you squeal if me or OT or anyone else think Bush is the cause of all the problems.?

I squeal because you guys ignore facts on specific issues and blame him for all and everything, even though many times the blame either goes elsewhere or at minimum needs to be shared!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW9viaJatpo&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mesZ49F_qGY&feature=fvw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugeqexHzVNQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVfh0DO5zKw&feature=fvw

So tell me again how Dems and Barney and Dodd were all responsible for Fannie and Freddie- and bad loans- and giving out money to folks with no mortgage history---- and how GW had nothing to do with the Bush Bust.... :roll: :p :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Oldtimer said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW9viaJatpo&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mesZ49F_qGY&feature=fvw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugeqexHzVNQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVfh0DO5zKw&feature=fvw

So tell me again how Dems and Barney and Dodd were all responsible for Fannie and Freddie- and bad loans- and giving out money to folks with no mortgage history---- and how GW had nothing to do with the Bush Bust.... :roll: :p :lol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW9viaJatpo&feature=related

So no comments from the rightwingernut peanut gallery about Bush's involvement in the housing fiasco- which led to the Bush Bust :???:

And even led to some Repub Congressman calling for criminal actions to be brought against him for his minority housing policy of throwing out all law regarding verifying immigration status- which Bilbray and Tancredo say led to the tremendous housing bust that hit California and Colorado....

His own speachs pretty well verify the NY Times story of how GW brought all his financial troubles- and the countries- on by himself...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html?_r=3
 

Tam

Well-known member
Yep Oldtimer here is your answer :wink:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1

THE DEMS STOOD IN THE WAY OF ANY NEW REGULATIONS TO STOP THE MELTDOWN even Clinton said so. :wink:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
Yep Oldtimer here is your answer :wink:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1

THE DEMS STOOD IN THE WAY OF ANY NEW REGULATIONS TO STOP THE MELTDOWN even Clinton said so. :wink:

The rest of the story:

WE TOLD YOU SO

Armando Falcon Jr. was preparing to take on a couple of giants.

A soft-spoken Texan, Mr. Falcon ran the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, a tiny government agency that oversaw Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two pillars of the American housing industry. In February 2003, he was finishing a blockbuster report that warned the pillars could crumble.

Created by Congress, Fannie and Freddie — called G.S.E.’s, for government-sponsored entities — bought trillions of dollars’ worth of mortgages to hold or sell to investors as guaranteed securities. The companies were also Washington powerhouses, stuffing lawmakers’ campaign coffers and hiring bare-knuckled lobbyists.

Mr. Falcon’s report outlined a worst-case situation in which Fannie and Freddie could default on debt, setting off “contagious illiquidity in the market” — in other words, a financial meltdown. He also raised red flags about the companies’ soaring use of derivatives, the complex financial instruments that economic experts now blame for spreading the housing collapse.

Today, the White House cites that report — and its subsequent effort to better regulate Fannie and Freddie — as evidence that it foresaw the crisis and tried to avert it. Bush officials recently wrote up a talking points memo headlined “G.S.E.’s — We Told You So.”

But the back story is more complicated. To begin with, on the day Mr. Falcon issued his report, the White House tried to fire him.

At the time, Fannie and Freddie were allies in the president’s quest to drive up homeownership rates; Franklin D. Raines, then Fannie’s chief executive, has fond memories of visiting Mr. Bush in the Oval Office and flying aboard Air Force One to a housing event. “They loved us,” he said.

So when Mr. Falcon refused to deep-six his report, Mr. Raines took his complaints to top Treasury officials and the White House. “I’m going to do what I need to do to defend my company and my position,” Mr. Raines told Mr. Falcon.

Days later, as Mr. Falcon was in New York preparing to deliver a speech about his findings, his cellphone rang. It was the White House personnel office, he said, telling him he was about to be unemployed.

His warnings were buried in the next day’s news coverage, trumped by the White House announcement that Mr. Bush would replace Mr. Falcon, a Democrat appointed by Bill Clinton, with Mark C. Brickell, a leader in the derivatives industry that Mr. Falcon’s report had flagged.

It was not until 2003, when Freddie became embroiled in an accounting scandal, that the White House took on the companies in earnest. Mr. Bush decided to quit the long-standing practice of rewarding supporters with high-paying appointments to the companies’ boards — “political plums,” in Mr. Rove’s words. He also withdrew Mr. Brickell’s nomination and threw his support behind Mr. Falcon, beginning an intense effort to give his little regulatory agency more power.

Mr. Falcon lacked explicit authority to limit the size of the companies’ mammoth investment portfolios, or tell them how much capital they needed to guard against losses. White House officials wanted that to change. They also wanted the power to put the companies into receivership, hoping that would end what Mr. Card, the former chief of staff, called “the myth of government backing,” which gave the companies a competitive edge because investors assumed the government would not let them fail.

By the spring of 2005 a deal with Congress seemed within reach, Mr. Snow, the former Treasury secretary, said in an interview.

Michael G. Oxley, an Ohio Republican and then-chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, had produced what Mr. Snow viewed as “a pretty darned good bill,” a watered-down version of what the president sought. But at the urging of Mr. Card and the White House economics team, the president decided to hold out for a tougher bill in the Senate.

Reporting to the President Mr. Card said he feared that Mr. Snow was “more interested in the deal than the result.” When the bill passed the House, the president issued a statement opposing it, effectively killing any chance of compromise. Mr. Oxley was furious.

“The problem with those guys at the White House, they had all the answers and they didn’t think they had to listen to anyone, including the Treasury secretary,” Mr. Oxley said in a recent interview. “They were driving the ideological train. He was in the caboose, and they were in the engine room.”

Mr. Card and Mr. Hennessey said they had no regrets. They are convinced, Mr. Hennessey said, that the Oxley bill would have produced “the worst of all possible outcomes,” the illusion of reform without the substance.

Still, some former White House and Treasury officials continue to debate whether Mr. Bush’s all-or-nothing approach scuttled a measure that, while imperfect, might have given an aggressive regulator enough power to keep the companies from failing.

Mr. Snow, for one, calls Mr. Oxley “a hero,” adding, “He saw the need to move. It didn’t get done. And it’s too bad, because I think if it had, I think we could well have avoided a big contributor to the current crisis.”
-----------

Over the previous two years, the White House had effectively set the agency adrift. Mr. Falcon left in 2005 and was replaced by a temporary director, who was in turn replaced by James B. Lockhart, a friend of Mr. Bush from their days at Andover, and a former deputy commissioner of the Social Security Administration who had once run a software company.

On Mr. Lockhart’s watch, both Freddie and Fannie had plunged into the riskiest part of the market, gobbling up more than $400 billion in subprime and other alternative mortgages. With the companies on precarious footing, Mr. Geithner had been advocating that the administration seize them or take other steps to reassure the market that the government would back their debt, according to two people with direct knowledge of his views.

In an Oval Office meeting on March 17, however, Mr. Paulson barely mentioned the idea, according to several people present. He wanted to use the troubled companies to unlock the frozen credit market by allowing Fannie and Freddie to buy more mortgage-backed securities from overburdened banks. To that end, Mr. Lockhart’s office planned to lift restraints on the companies’ huge portfolios — a decision derided by former White House and Treasury officials who had worked so hard to limit them.

But Mr. Paulson told Mr. Bush the companies would shore themselves up later by raising more capital.

“Can they?” Mr. Bush asked.

“We’re hoping so,” the Treasury secretary replied.

That turned out to be incorrect, and did not surprise Mr. Thomas, the Bush economic adviser. Throughout that spring and summer, he warned the White House and Treasury that, in the stark words of one e-mail message, “Freddie Mac is in trouble.” And Mr. Lockhart, he charged, was allowing the company to cover up its insolvency with dubious accounting maneuvers.

But Mr. Lockhart continued to offer reassurances. In a July appearance on CNBC, he declared that the companies were well managed and “worsts were not coming to worst.” An infuriated Mr. Thomas sent a fresh round of e-mail messages accusing Mr. Lockhart of “pimping for the stock prices of the undercapitalized firms he regulates.”

Mr. Lockhart defended himself, insisting in an interview that he was aware of the companies’ vulnerabilities, but did not want to rattle markets.

“A regulator,” he said, “does not air dirty laundry in public.”

Soon afterward, the companies’ stocks lost half their value in a single day, prompting Congress to quickly give Mr. Paulson the power to spend $200 billion to prop them up and to finally pass Mr. Bush’s long-sought reform bill, but it was too late. In September, the government seized control of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

In an interview, Mr. Paulson said the administration had no justification to take over the companies any sooner. But Mr. Falcon disagreed: “They absolutely could have if they had thought there was a real danger.”
 

nonothing

Well-known member
Well Tam,I give you credit for at least trying to blame it on the libs....but in 2002 it was all GW.......I guess Aplus,sandhusker and hopalong were wrong again. I bet we do not hear from them in this thread again.....lol....
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
nonothing said:
Well Tam,I give you credit for at least trying to blame it on the libs....but in 2002 it was all GW.......I guess Aplus,sandhusker and hopalong were wrong again. I bet we do not hear from them in this thread again.....lol....

You left me out of the list. I am offended.
 
Top